InPeters & Co Limited v Ward, 2015 ABCA 6, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision to issue an Anton Piller Order to an investment firm that had presented evidence that an employee, who had resigned to work for a competitor, had removed confidential company information and property.

The Anton Piller Order permitted the search and seizure of the ex-employee's residences, vehicles, computer and other digital storage devices, and an office building, for the property.

The appeal court summarized the former employee's misconduct and the company's response as follows:

[3] The facts are fully set out in the trial reasons, so only a brief summary of the facts is necessary here. Clarke began employment with Syncrude in 1983. When terminated in 2005, he was 55 years old, an assistant comptroller and Syncrude's key contact with its pension fund administrator.
read more »

Ontario lawyer Ted Charney, Charney Lawyers, announced that he has filed a class action lawsuit against the Canadian Hockey League for breach of employment standards legislation as it relates to the junior hockey players who play in the league. This is his press release:

CHL CLASS ACTION LAUNCHED TORONTO, October 20, 2014 - A class action has been commenced on behalf of all players in the Ontario Hockey League (OHL), Western Hockey League (WHL), and the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League (QMJHL) who entered into contracts with the teams in those leagues. It is alleged that the contracts with the players are employment contracts that contravene the minimum wage set by the legislation governing each jurisdiction where a team is domiciled.

The defendants are the Canadian Hockey League, the OHL, the WHL, the QMJHL, and the sixty teams that play in each of these leagues. read more »

In a letter that was published on January 14, 2014, the Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner has now advised the Alberta government on what changes she thinks should be made to the Alberta PIPA to allow it to be constitutionally compliant. The letter, dated December 20, 2013, can be found here.

37. PIPA imposes restrictions on a union's ability to communicate and persuade the public of its cause, impairing its ability to use one of its most effective bargaining strategies in the course of a lawful strike. In our view, this infringement of the right to freedom of expression is disproportionate to the government's objective of providing individuals with control over personal information that they expose by crossing a picketline. read more »